role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 15, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L112 - Mon 15 Nov 1976 / Lun 15 nov 1976

HIRING OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL BY UNIVERSITIES

STUDENT ENROLMENT IN AGRICULTURE

NORTHERN ONTARIO AIR SERVICES

REED PAPER

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXEMPTIONS

PREMIER WOODWORKING

CORE CURRICULUM

APPLICATIONS TO TEACHER EDUCATION COLLEGES

METHOD OF ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS

HYDRO LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

MUNICIPAL NOMINATION PAPERS

SOLICITOR-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS

ITALIAN COURSES IN SCHOOL

MILK QUOTA ALLOCATION

EXTENSION OF OMC TAX DEADLINE

SUSPENSION OF MAPLEHURST GUARD

PROTECTION OF OHC TENANTS

FUNDS FOR WINDSOR CENTRE

REPORTS

FOODLANDS PROTECTION ACT

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

HIRING OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL BY UNIVERSITIES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, last April I informed the Legislature about the citizenship of faculty at Ontario universities. Recently the Council of Ontario Universities published statistics on the 1976-77 appointments and these have now been reviewed.

It would appear that this year the universities appointed a proportion of Canadian citizens, and landed immigrants already in Canada, of about six percentage points higher than last year. However, the marked changes in the way the data were collected make exact comparison with last year’s data impossible. The new method records the immigration status of individuals at the time of a job offer being made. This highlights more accurately the area that deserves scrutiny, namely the number of non-Canadians newly entering Canada to assume faculty positions. This base will be used to evaluate progress in succeeding years.

I am confident that more progress will be made in future years because the universities will have more lead time to implement our policies, agreed to by the presidents. I’ve discussed this issue at some length with several presidents and I know the procedure has been adopted by all presidents. I know, too, that they gave their personal review of all appointments this year and I believe these procedures will be maintained.

The COU data also show that 83 visiting professors were appointed. These visiting professors are expected to return to their permanent appointments at other universities after a brief stay. Of these, 46 were visiting from other countries. We want to foster such arrangements which ensure the free flow of scholarship.

There has been some confusion over our policy toward the appointment of landed immigrants. I would like to state, without qualification, that we consider landed immigrants already working in Canada at the time an offer of employment is made, to be as eligible for faculty appointment as are Canadian citizens. Indeed, some of these landed immigrants appointed are graduates of our own universities. This is obviously beneficial.

The confusion arose because in 1975-76 about 70 per cent of the landed immigrants appointed entered Canada after appointment or just prior to being appointed. These cannot be regarded in the same light as appointments of landed immigrants already in Canada. We believe that recruitment outside Canada of non-Canadians for full-time positions should only be done when it has been demonstrated that no qualified Canadian or established landed immigrant is available for that position. It appears that universities are themselves implementing such a policy because fewer newly-entering non-Canadians were appointed this year.

Last year about 72 per cent of all faculty members in Ontario were Canadian. In Britain 92 per cent of faculty are British, in the United States 98 per cent are US citizens, and in Sweden 99 per cent are Swedish citizens.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s socialism for you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: All these countries have prestigious universities. Clearly, scholarship does not depend on having a large component of foreign faculty. We need make no apologies for attempting to ensure that Ontario universities are distinctively Canadian.

Hon. members will recall that when I last reported to the House on this subject I mentioned that discussions were being held with the Department of Manpower and Immigration. These discussions are proceeding favourably and I expect to be able to report on progress in the near future.

Our goal is not the pursuit of a magic Canadian percentage for our faculty; it is the assurance that qualified Canadians and established landed immigrants are not being displaced by newly-entering non-Canadians.

The improvement shown by most institutions, the attention being given to this issue by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the continuing commitment of the presidents to ensure that Canadians and established landed immigrants are adequately considered, suggest that we may be optimistic. We will continue to monitor faculty appointments and I will keep the House informed.

STUDENT ENROLMENT IN AGRICULTURE

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the members that this year’s enrolment in the two-year diploma programme in agriculture is the highest it has ever been. Five hundred and eighty-five in first-year students are enrolled in the province’s four colleges of agricultural technology --

Mr. Cassidy: Train them to understand your programmes.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and the University of Guelph. The total number of students in the two years is 1,180. This represents a 45 per cent increase in the past five years. I am particularly pleased to note that first-year enrolments in the colleges at Kemptville and Centralia are up about 40 per cent over last year. The programmes presented by the four colleges and the University of Guelph offer diplomas in the broad fields of agricultural production and management, laboratory technology, business and commerce, home economics, food service management and animal health technology.

Mr. Speaker, I believe these increased enrolments show the high degree of confidence young people have today in the future of agriculture in Ontario. Their confidence is justified.

Mr. Cassidy: Not through you.

Hon. W. Newman: More than half the graduates of these courses are able to return to the farm each year, while the remainder are employed by industries related to agriculture.

Mr. Mancini: Great man.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

NORTHERN ONTARIO AIR SERVICES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources in three brief parts: Has the minister written to the federal government to ask them for a public inquiry into air transportation in the north, northern Ontario in particular? In the absence of that, will Ontario initiate its own public inquiry? And in the absence of that, which of the specific jury recommendations which were made on the crash at Fraserdale will this government now hasten to implement?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I indicated publicly when I was in the Timmins area that I would await the report of the coroner’s inquest prior to making any appeal to the federal government for an inquiry into the air services in northern Ontario. I did not wait for that coroner’s report to come down.

I took the initiative, I think six or eight weeks ago, and I wrote the federal Minister of Transport urging him to get on with a full-fledged investigation into all air traffic movement in northern Ontario, because I felt that many of our very good operators -- and we have many good operators in northern Ontario -- are being pulled down, as I said in the newspaper yesterday, to the lowest common denominator. I did not zero in on the private sector.

I also indicated that maybe the public sector should also be investigated as it relates to airstrip development, navigational aids and the dissemination of weather information. That has gone to the federal Minister of Transport. I have not received a reply as yet. I also indicated in my correspondence to the minister that I was prepared to offer the services of my ministry to work with him in this particular investigation.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, in the absence of any reply, or in the absence of a favourable reply, will the minister make the necessary alterations which were requested by the coroner’s jury, related to the availability of weather information, the marking of hydro lines, etc.? Would he consider, in addition, a public inquiry held in Ontario by Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful we will have a favourable reply from the federal authorities. As the hon. member is fully aware, the control of air traffic in this country is a federal jurisdiction, and it is their total responsibility. I can assure him we will use all the weight we can muster from this government to lean on them to correct the situation, which has attracted considerable public attention.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: I wonder if I could ask the minister if he has actually discussed this in cabinet, in particular in relationship to his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), with regard to the upgrading of the microwave equipment, which I believe is a provincial MTC responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we’ve had some verbal conversations on this aspect.

Mr. Foulds: Has the minister made any decision or plan of action to improve that, especially in view of the previous crash and coroner’s jury report as a result of the crash near Red Lake, I believe one and a half or two years ago?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal decision reached as yet. We are awaiting, of course, the outcome of my correspondence to the federal government.

Mr. Lewis: I am glad your conversations were verbal. That’s reassuring.

REED PAPER

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister, on another subject, has he discussed with the Premier (Mr. Davis), or does he have any response to the categorical refusal on the part of Treaty 9 to participate in the environmental hearings that have been established to deal with the Reed Paper transaction?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no formal communications with Mr. Rickard and I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with the Premier yet.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, may I ask the minister to make a statement to the House -- or perhaps request the Premier to do that -- when he has evaluated the letters they sent to him, so that we know where we go from here?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’ll bring this to the attention of the Premier and discuss it with him personally.

Mr. Lewis: A further question to the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may. Did he notice that in an interview which Mr. Billingsley, the president of the Reed Paper company, gave to the Globe and Mail he indicated that when the government took specific initiatives around economic or social improvements for Whitedog and Grassy Narrows the Reed Paper company would be willing to consider financial support and involvement to compensate for what was done? Has the minister talked to the company specifically about the financial underwriting of any such support or compensation for the native people?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not, but since reading that particular

article I intend to make it a point to speak to Mr. Billingsley to clarify what he meant by that statement.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXEMPTIONS

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of the Environment: Given the enormous public controversy around certain environmental projects, would he agree to submitting to the Environmental Assessment Board under The Environmental Assessment Act the question of the placement of the bridge across the Elora Gorge and the increasingly contentious matters of the West Montrose dam?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this has been a controversial issue for some time.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The conservation authority has been approached on a number of occasions, not only by some of its own members, but by citizens’ groups in the area. They feel that the planning of the project is such that it should go ahead. Certainly if there is representation to me at this stage I would consider the possibility of the Environmental Assessment Board looking into it. But I must emphasize, as I say, it has been under consideration for some time.

I am not sure, but I believe it is one of the projects that are exempt under the environmental assessment regulations -- projects that were made exempt as a result of our phasing in of other than government projects, although there was one project that the Grand River authority wanted included, but that wasn’t one of them. I would have to discuss this with my people and with the conservation authorities to see what stage it’s at. As the hon. member knows, it’s in the courts. It may still be subject to some --

Mr. Lewis: It is out of the courts.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, I believe there’s still one avenue of appeal left; whether or not that will be taken, I am not sure.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate at this time what reply he is going to give to the Minister of Natural Resources on the request made by the Grand River Conservation Authority to MNR, which was passed on to his ministry, regarding the feasibility of handing over the 1.2 acres of land to the county of Wellington?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I’m not sure, Mr. Speaker, why the Ministry of the Environment would be involved in a land transfer. I’m not quite sure. Did the member say the Ministry of Natural Resources has written to the Ministry of the Environment making this suggestion?

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I’m not aware of that correspondence. I’ll have to look that up.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Would the minister then table in this House his reply to the request from the Ministry of Natural Resources?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that.

Mr. Worton: Supplementary: In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the minister mentioned the Environmental Assessment Board and I thought he had given us a commitment in regard to the dam project that that would be covered under that board?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the Elora Gorge, whether or not there has been any commitment --

Mr. S. Smith: Montrose dam.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The Montrose dam project? I am sure there is no reason why that can’t be included.

Mr. Worton: I thought the minister said that was. Can he give us the assurance?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Certainly.

Mr. Lewis: That’s good. Then he will consider the Elora Gorge.

PREMIER WOODWORKING

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Labour who I see has just arrived from the conference. May I ask her whether she can explain why the Workmen’s Compensation Board rehabilitation division continued to deal with Premier Picture Frame in the placement of workers in what is essentially a hostile industrial ghetto framework, when as far back as 10 or 11 months ago the rehabilitation branch was on record in letters to at least one of the members of the Legislature that it knew of the problems at Premier and was not happy about them?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have not seen a copy of the letter to which the hon. member refers. I would tell him first that the president and owner of Premier Picture Frame, a Mr. Robert Jovanovich, is himself an injured workman, a graduate of the rehabilitation programme of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and is, I think, perhaps particularly knowledgeable about the problems which injured workmen may have. There may have been some correspondence 11 months ago; I have not seen that letter and I would most certainly like to have a copy of it.

However, during the past two years there have been 19 trainees in the on-the-job training programme sent to Mr. Jovanovich and his company, of whom seven at least are still with that company. Four of these 19, I gather, were ceased as a result of recurrence of their compensable illnesses at some time during their training programmes. Three of them were very shortly found, within the term of employment or on-the-job training, to be unable to cope with the job and were released regardless of the light nature of the work. They were released within a very short time of being taken on the programme.

Three apparently were considered unsatisfactory as a result of their loss of time from work, their incompatibility with the employer and poor quality of work, and they were also released during the training programme.

Since the programme ceased for at least three of them within six months of the cessation of their training programmes, three more have been terminated. There is one who is continuing right now with the training programme on the job. Five who have been graduates of the programme are currently employed by the company and have continued so up to two years. One of the latter, as a matter of fact is a foreman.

I’m sure there are problems, which are being investigated. The Workmen’s Compensation Board has assigned a specific vocational rehabilitation officer to deal with the 10 or 11 people who have complained about their dealings with Premier Picture Frame. This specific officer is attempting to find them other employment.

The problem of on-the-job training and rehabilitation is not easy. It requires a great deal of patience. Some of the employers who have, I would remind the hon. members, since April 1 this year provided 222 places or new jobs for injured workmen within the province are attempting valiantly -- these are private employers -- to assist the board in its programme of rehabilitation of injured workmen.

Whether there is a specific personality problem in this situation or not, I do not know at this time. I can tell the House that we are continuing to investigate this. We are continuing to talk to Mr. Jovanovich, who seems to be particularly concerned but perhaps is an employer who, because of his experience, expects more of his employees than some others would. It is particularly significant to realize that he himself has been through this programme and believes it’s a worthwhile programme and is prepared to continue with it.

I am a little concerned that perhaps this unfavourable publicity related to one specific company may not allow other employers, who might be encouraged to consider this kind of activity, to continue with the programme in which they are voluntarily cooperating.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary: Could the minister tell the House how the rehabilitation branch of the Workmen’s Compensation Board can work effectively in assisting injured workers to find a job, when the board is giving approximately 115 cases per rehabilitation officer, while the total number of rehabilitation officers, including people working at the rehabilitation hospital, is approximately 110?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if that figure is exact then the work load of the officers is not at the level at which the hon. member has stated it is. During the past year there were approximately 2,400 injured workmen rehabilitated through the rehabilitation process and they are the responsibility of the rehabilitation officers.

Mr. Speaker: The final supplementary on this; the member for Downsview.

Mr. di Santo: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour: One, is she aware that the workers who were separated were actually physically ejected from the plant by Mr. Jovanovich; and two, if it is true that there have been only 222 workers retrained on the job and if there are 2,400 retrained, can she tell us how the other 2,200 workers have been refrained?

Can she also explain to us whether it isn’t true that most of the workers who are supposed to be retrained actually have to go to the companies and report to rehabilitation officers in order to get the supplement?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a brief answer to that? I am not sure how it relates to the original, but --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge that any of these people were physically ejected. Secondly, I said that since April 1, 1976, in six months, 222 new jobs had been developed by voluntary employer participation in this programme; and that the rehabilitation officers are responsible for 2,400 workers who were injured, but the programmes are not necessarily on-the-job training.

The 222 jobs I mentioned were on-the-job training jobs. There are others which are involved with return to school, return to different kinds of educational programmes; and in some cases return to jobs within their own plants which are not new jobs.

CORE CURRICULUM

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Education; this is about the students presently in grade nine throughout the province of Ontario: Does the minister recall that on October 6, when he made his statement at the press conference, he said that the students in grade nine would be entitled to have the new core curriculum recommendations apply to their education; and yet in his answer to me on November 10 he said that these students would not be permitted to have that particular advantage, such as it may be? Is he aware that there are over 100,000 children in that category; and why is he depriving them of this reasonably easy to obtain advantage?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I answered that question quite fully last week, and I thought to everyone’s satisfaction; I don’t think it requires repeating again for the leader of the third party.

Mr. S. Smith: Despite the grace and pleasantry of that answer, I would like to ask, by way of supplementary, if in fact he decided that it would not be fair to change the rules, as he puts it, for the grade nine students, why did he say on October 6 that he would include the grade nine students? Was he simply mistaken or did he change his mind since then?

An hon. member: Flip-flop.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question last week and I think --

Mr. S. Smith: You did not.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that I explained to the member; if he read the newspapers, I indicated --

Mr. Eakins: The minister changed his mind.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that I would give consideration to whether it should be phased in for those students presently in school. Upon reflection and discussion with the members of the profession and our staff, it became obvious that the ground rules should not be changed for those students presently in school. I explained it very fully to the member last week.

Mr. S. Smith: Very fully indeed. Another question for the Minister of Education: Regarding the statement which he made to the Globe and Mail on the weekend on tightening the requirements within the core subjects themselves, I would like to ask the minister whether it’s a fact that he said the present system “just isn’t working”? If he did say that, could he share with this House precisely the evidence upon which that statement was based? How does he know that the present system is not working?

Hon. Mr. Wells: My speech on the weekend -- which I will be glad to send my friend since I assume he hasn’t read it -- is referring to the present system of decentralized development of curriculum, a system which we brought in five or six years ago, which we had great hopes for but which has not lived up to our expectations and is indeed not working. We know it.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: How do you know?

Hon. Mr. Wells: How do we know it? We know it because we listen to people telling us what is happening in the schools.

Mr. Breithaupt: About time.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Unlike my friend who reacts to things in panic and feels the school system is --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why don’t you call another press conference?

Mr. Roy: Why did you reverse your stand?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Unlike the leader of the third party, who continues to tell the people of this province that the school system is in a shambles -- an absolute untruth --

Mr. Peterson: It is true.

Mr. Breithaupt: So is the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: Your incompetence surprises even your fellow ministers.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We continually listen to what people within and without the system are saying.

Mr. Roy: Yes, you listen to the polls.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Bring him to order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In the last six months we have listened to what the Ontario secondary school teachers suggested could be done to improve the system. We have listened to what the secondary school headmasters have suggested. We have listened to what the home and school people have told us in personal meetings --

Mr. Cassidy: Amazing what minority government does.

Mr. Ruston: And the public.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have listened to what the public school trustees have suggested to us; and being a very responsive and receptive government, we have brought in improvements and refinements.

Mr. Ruston: The Liberal Party’s platform.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I congratulate the minister, of course, for listening so carefully to all sources; but if, in fact, simply listening to people is sufficient for him to decide that his system isn’t working, may I ask him exactly where, in this precise week and in this precise year, did he get the information it wasn’t working? Why is he persisting with a very expensive interface study, which we were told was absolutely essential in order to know whether the system is working or not? Why not simply scrap it and listen to the people?

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend again exhibits his lack of knowledge about what really is happening in the province. The interface study is a very important study, but it has nothing to do with the principle of decentralized curriculum in this province. It has to do with a lot of other things, but not this particular thing. Let him wait until he reads that study and then see what we have to say about the results of that.

Mr. Roy: You are on the defensive now. You are on the defensive and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Very fortunately for me I haven’t been a professional educator --

Mr. Breithaupt: Unfortunately for the school children.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and so, basically we are going to develop a curriculum for the help of the teachers and the students of this province which will help them to be able to communicate better --

Mr. Breithaupt: They will appreciate that.

Mr. Reid: I thought that’s what the last one was all about.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Sweeney: With respect to decentralized curriculum, could the minister please explain the contradiction between his statement of October 6, which says: “We will ensure that every student” -- I underline the word “every” -- “knows enough about our history and our geography.” Then farther down: “As Canadians we must have a firm grasp of our history and our physical geography,” and the statement released by the ministry on October 20 --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The supplementary question is supposed to be supplementary --

Mr. Sweeney: It is supplementary to --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sweeney: It has to do with decentralized curriculum --

Mr. Speaker: That does not include reading lengthily from any document; so if you can abbreviate it, that will be fine.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have to identify the source of the contradiction.

Mr. Speaker: This is a supplementary question, not an original question, I point out.

Mr. Sweeney: All right. On October 20 the ministry released a memorandum which said that in grades 9 and 10 the students can either take two courses in Canadian history or one in history and one in geography. On the one hand he says they must take geography, on the other hand he says they don’t have to.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We get into a whole debate on this whole subject again and again --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There was an original question asked a long time ago, I forget what the exact gist of it was but this is supposed to be supplementary to it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. All that noise doesn’t help.

Mr. Speaker: Is the question completed now? Is the supplementary question completed now? Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we are more interested in improving the education system than in nitpicking about memoranda.

Mr. S. Smith: The geography of Canada is nitpicking?

Mr. Reid: Are you going to change the geography of Canada, too?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If my friend is really concerned in reading memoranda here, why doesn’t he read the memorandum that’s gone out clarifying that particular point?

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: And you wonder why we call it a shambles.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is real leadership.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The core subjects are one credit in Canadian history and one credit in Canadian geography in the first two years and these options must be given in every school.

Mr. Reid: Are they options or core subjects?

Hon. Mr. Wells: These two subjects must be made available in every school but it is also possible, if the school wishes, to offer another history option, and that will also qualify students for graduation diplomas if they do take one and two history; but the geography course must be in every school.

Mr. Cassidy: That did need clarification.

APPLICATIONS TO TEACHER EDUCATION COLLEGES

Mr. S. Smith: A separate question of the Minister of Education; it has to do with the Ontario Teacher Education Colleges: In view of the fact that under The Education Act, 1914, regulation 5 sets a specific deadline for applications by students to the Ontario Teacher Education Colleges, can he tell us who in his ministry deliberately went against that regulation and permitted the education colleges simply to disregard applications which arrived well within the deadline? Instead, the colleges used a first-come, first-served basis for accepting people to study. Who was it in the ministry who disregarded the regulation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We didn’t disregard our regulation. There was a quota or a number which we would accept this year in the colleges and it was done on a first-come, first- served basis. There were many more applications than we could accept. Financial constraints and teaching staff at the colleges necessitated that we educate only so many and there had to be a cut-off date.

Mr. Breithaupt: You make your choice on the speed of the mail.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will have a much fuller statement about how this process will be handled next year --

Mr. Ruston: Another memorandum.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is called a shambles, that’s what it’s called.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend has gone around this province making a great point of this first-come, first-served business in our teacher education colleges. It was done probably for the only time last year because there were many more applicants than we could take in.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s still not the way to handle them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s been done in many other educational institutions in this province for a long time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Then it has been done wrong.

Mr. Conway: That doesn’t justify it.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, can the minister tell us whether the ministry considered any means of judging the applications which arrived, for an albeit limited number of places, on the basis of merit? Is he ready for that term? What means of deciding on the basis of merit was chosen and looked at by the ministry prior to deciding on teacher applications based on the speed of the mail?

Mr. Breithaupt: They do it by postmark.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I suggest that my friend will probably fall out of his seat when he hears how we are going to handle the situation this year.

Mr. Singer: You certainly lay them in the aisles.

METHOD OF ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Another question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I was not intending to ask this question until the comment was made by the Minister of Education.

Could the Minister of Colleges and Universities tell us which institutions of higher learning in this province under his ministry have adopted the same method of accepting people for study, namely first come first- served, irrespective of merit? The Minister of Education has said there are other institutions in this province doing it; could this minister list those institutions for us, please?

Mr. Bullbrook: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would have thought the member for Hamilton West would have known that the universities set their own admission standards and as such are given that privilege.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Accepting the fact that the universities set their own admission standards, the ministry must surely have a record of these? Could the minister please tell us which universities have adopted that particular practice of first come first served rather than merit, and for what courses?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’ll be glad to report to the member in a very short period of time from now which universities adopted what programme, but certainly I wouldn’t expect him to expect that I would have that information today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre has a question.

[Applause.]

Mr. Drea: You should be applauding my colleague, not me.

Mr. Speaker: We’re wasting time here. Order.

HYDRO LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Drea: To the Minister of Energy: Since the minister informed the House last Tuesday of a very significant meeting with the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission today for the government to consider an imaginative and resourceful load management programme by the commission, can the minister report on the outcome of the meeting?

Mr. Nixon: Dennis, have you gone home since Remembrance Day?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we had an excellent meeting this morning with Messrs. Cavanagh and Broley, who are members of the commission; and with Mr. Curtis, who is the general manager of the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission, and also as a matter of fact served as president of the Association of Municipal Electrical Utilities of Ontario. We all agreed that the proposal they put forward is along the lines of a variety of things we would like to see done in the province to investigate the potential of load management.

I pointed out to them that during debates and statements last week I had indicated that within two months Hydro is to come back with an initial report on the potential for load management. So we’re going to follow up the meeting with further sessions involving Hydro, Scarborough PUC and the ministry. The short answer I suppose is that it is an excellent proposal which we want to see followed up.

MUNICIPAL NOMINATION PAPERS

Mr. Ferrier: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that con- fission exists concerning the legality of nomination papers filed on November 11 by candidates for municipal office and school board offices? If so, what action is he going to take to make sure the confusion is removed and a number of legal challenges do not result from this confusion?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am aware and I’m looking into it.

Mr. Ferrier: As a supplementary, will the minister be reporting to the House the results of his investigation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Before election day?

SOLICITOR-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Does he plan to lay criminal charges against the Ontario Provincial Police officers who intercepted a private communication on April 19, 1976, at the Perth county jail, for which they had no authorization and in which the OPP were under the direction of one Detective Inspector Bill Bowles?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that’s the first I’ve heard of the matter. It would probably be up to the Attorney General to consider the laying of any charges. I have no information on the matter at all, sir.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: I’d like the minister to tell us what possible justification there is for the police, first of all not obtaining an authorization; and secondly, what possible excuse is there for intercepting a communication between a solicitor and his client, as was done in the case of Regina vs. Donald Turner?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, knowing nothing about the matter, I can’t comment one way or another.

Mr. Roy: Don’t you have any policy? It’s your force.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. minister answered practically all the supplementaries with both his answers.

Mr. Roy: Just one supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: If it’s a supplementary that’s reasonable.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t he have any policy within his ministry on OPP officers not intercepting communications between a solicitor and his client?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, yes we have policies, but I’m not going to fall into the trap that my friend is trying to set for me by suggesting there was some breach of policy in this case.

Mr. Peterson: How cunning of you, John.

Mr. Singer: What is the policy? That was a clever trap, to ask the minister about policy.

[2:45]

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister hasn’t laid a trap since he got engaged.

Mr. Singer: I asked him about a statute last week and he fell into that trap.

Mr. di Santo: I have a question of the Minister of Education.

An hon. member: He’s hiding.

Mr. Speaker: Is the Minister of Education available?

Mr. Warner: He’s lurking in the shadows.

Mr. Speaker: You may now proceed.

ITALIAN COURSES IN SCHOOL

Mr. di Santo: In order to dissipate the uncertainty among Italian parents related to Italian courses, will the minister reassure the House in no uncertain terms that: One, the courses won’t be closed; two, will he inform the House whether his ministry has already had any contact with the separate school board; and three, can he tell us whether he has in mind any plan to contact the Italian government in order to come to an agreement until the time the provincial government will take over the courses?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I’d be happy to. We have talked to the separate school board and no one is going to suggest that those courses should be stopped or disbanded at the present time. We haven’t yet, but through some channels we will be talking to the Italian government to clarify perhaps more clearly its support, how it’s being done and whether it should be done in a more formalized manner if it is to be carried on. We’ll also have a statement on our multicultural policy toward education, probably in about two or three weeks.

MILK QUOTA ALLOCATION

Mr. Gaunt: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Has the Ontario Milk Marketing Board decided how the extra quota allocation is going to be handled? If a general distribution takes place rather than one done on the basis of the greatest need, as was suggested by the federal government, is there not a danger of Ontario producers losing $3 million in milk subsidies if Ontario doesn’t comply with the federal request?

Hon. W. Newman: I’m well aware of the conditions Mr. Whelan put on the four million hundredweight of milk which I urged and coaxed him to release to the dairy farmers of this province.

Mr. Bullbrook: Good old Bill!

Hon. W. Newman: I would just like to let members know that after several meetings with the Milk Marketing Board a letter was dispatched with great haste last Thursday to Mr. Whelan, suggesting exactly how this 127 million pounds of milk should be distributed in the province of Ontario. I understand that letter will be made public on Friday.

Mr. Singer: He speaks well.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Would the minister not consider it to be more appropriate to give the quota to milk producers who really need it rather than giving it to producers who don’t need it and can’t make use of it?

Interjections.

Hon. N. Newman: As I just said, there were four criteria set out in the letter that has gone off to Ottawa. Certainly there is concern for new producers, as well as concern for producers who have been in the business for a long time and for those who have taken a very heavy debt upon themselves. There is also concern for those who have shipped well over 60 per cent of their total MSQ for this year already. There is also another category of people who have specific problems which will have to be dealt with on an individual basis because they may have loans at the bank or some other source to which we don’t have access.

I can assure members that the allocation being proposed by the Milk Marketing Board, about which we have had discussions, will be a fair and equitable distribution to the producers of this province on the basis of need.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Whelan always speaks well of you.

Hon. W. Newman: Sometimes.

Mr. Roy: He says you are still learning.

EXTENSION OF OMC TAX DEADLINE

Mr. Burr: I have a question of the Minister of Housing concerning an unexpected and alarming notice from OMC, received on Friday, November 12 by large numbers of residents of a Windsor HOME subdivision called “Villages of Riverside,” informing them that their municipal tax accounts have deficits of several hundred dollars and that OMC must receive these amounts by this Friday, November 19, or it will be increasing their monthly payments by about $50, beginning December 1. The question is, will the minister extend this period to two months to enable the residents to figure out how and whether they can find those large sums of money?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I learned of this situation today as a result of a letter the hon. member gave to me. I think it’s only reasonable, if the notification has been of such short time, that certainly there should be an extension of time and that they will not be held to the Friday deadline. We will certain- 13 look into that matter and those residents will not have to pay by Friday.

Mr. Deans: Can I assume that the minister is aware that this has occurred in many Home Ownership subdivisions across the province, and that we have been in touch with the ministry’s offices asking that some action be taken and that the same rule that he has most graciously applied to the Sandwich-Riverside situation will be applied to every other purchaser of Home Ownership homes until this matter can be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would have to say yes. I see no reason at all that the purchasers of these homes, who have made their purchases with the information that was available to them, should be placed in any position of having to pay out money until it has been determined that it is a fair price, certainly.

Mr. Swart: A further supplementary to the minister: In the light of what is happening, is he willing to reconsider the general policy of OHC whereby these huge deficits in tax payments are accruing, and see that they don’t accrue to the same degree, and where there are deficits they’ll be spread over a number of years so there aren’t drastic changes in the payments that these people have to make?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t want to make any firm commitment on that part of it. I would like to look at what is causing the problem. Quite frankly, the first that I was aware of it was when the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside gave me a letter today. I would like to look into that situation, see what the problem is and, where we can, we’d like to rectify it.

Mr. Speaker: I think we should get on with the time left, because this is effectively the same questions over again.

SUSPENSION OF MAPLEHURST GUARD

Mr. Reed: I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services: Could the minister please tell this House how it is that a guard at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre has been suspended without pay as of this morning considering that the alleged incident occurred on or about October 30, and since that time he has had no opportunity whatsoever to defend himself at a hearing?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I am unaware of the circumstances of the incident the hon. member has referred to and I will undertake to find out exactly its nature and why there hasn’t been a hearing as is normally held.

Mr. Reed: Would the minister not agree that the tactic of suspension without pay constitutes a prejudgement of the case?

Hon. J. R. Smith: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: No? What does it mean to you?

Interjections.

PROTECTION OF OHC TENANTS

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Housing: In view of the fact that the government last spring took the tenants of municipal public housing out from under rent control legislation despite our objections, is the minister prepared to use his authority to approve rent changes in such projects to give the tenants the protection they lack under the law against increases that are greater than a person of modest means can absorb in any one year? In particular, in my riding at 98 Elmer, they are being asked --

Mr. S. Smith: Question, come on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I really think the question has been asked.

Ms. Bryden: -- for rent increases amounting to 29.5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Does the hon. minister have an answer to the main question?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think the question should more properly be addressed to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman). I certainly have --

Interjections.

An hon. member: Pass the buck, John.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: With respect, the Liberals are a party to the whole mess that we got into over that the first time around. Remember that.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, we brought in the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Peterson: John, you should resign.

Mr. Lewis: This minority government is an awful hassle to you Tories.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They won’t make up their minds.

Mr. Lewis: Remember the days of the great majority?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to redirect her question if it’s appropriate to redirect it?

Order, please!

Ms. Bryden: I understand the approval of rent increases in projects of this sort, municipal projects which are shared among federal and provincial and municipal, come under the Minister of Housing.

Ms. Gigantes: Correct.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If we have the control on the rents, of course I would like to look into what can be done to hold them to reasonable increases. However, I have taken the position all along that I do not interfere with the autonomy of the municipal governments.

Mr. Roy: That’s a new policy.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It really surprises me --

Mr. Roy: Ask Darcy about regional government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is not a new policy, as the members well know.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member would like to see us have control over them all. The hon. member, on more than one occasion I am sure, has noticed that the city of Toronto -- I think this is where the problem is occurring, in its housing department -- has made a judgement as to what it thinks it needs in the way of rent. I don’t really like to be involved in controlling the activities of that particular area which I understand is non-profit.

FUNDS FOR WINDSOR CENTRE

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware that the Kinsmen’s ARC Industries, the workshop and training centre for mentally retarded in the city of Windsor, will close on November 30 this year for at least one month unless he provides increased funds so it can continue operating?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr) bringing this matter to my attention last week. As I said then and I will repeat now, I can assure them that the ARC Industries workshop will not close. There have been financial problems in connection with the operation of that workshop. There are some problems in terms of budgetary control but the members can rest assured that we will work those out.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Parrott presented the financial report of the Ontario College of Art for the year ending May 31, 1976.

Mr. Johnson, on behalf of Mr. McNeil, from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Ministry administration program.........$5,507,000

Industrial relations programme............1,446,000

Women’s program..................................505,000

Labour services program......................8,231,000

Human Rights Commission program.....1,247,000

Labour Relations Board program..........1,852,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

FOODLANDS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. McCague moved first reading of Bill 162,

An Act to provide for the Designation and Retention of Foodlands.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, this bill would propose to designate classes one, two, three and four, and specialty crop lands, as foodlands.

Mr. Lewis: You mean you are going to freeze the foodlands? On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a Tory freezing agricultural land.

Mr. Speaker: That is not really a point of order.

Any further bills?

Mr. B. Newman: Before you get it on the record, why don’t you read the bill?

Mr. Lewis: That is exactly what we wanted to do. You hypocrites over there. You got a back-bencher to sneak it through.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The debate hasn’t started yet, gentlemen.

Mr. Singer: Come on. You’re not going to allow that are you?

Hon. W. Newman: You create all kinds of emotional issues.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we not return to sanity here for just a few minutes?

Mr. Roy: Return to sanity -- sit down, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before calling the orders of the day, there are two things I’d like to do --

Mr. Foulds: Stand up first!

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: First of all, I think all members of the House would want to join with me in congratulating the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) on the honour conferred on him by a great university on Friday.

[Applause.]

Mr. Breithaupt: He has got office hours later today.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Having shared undergraduate days with the hon. member in earlier days, I must say I personally am quite delighted he’s made such progress since 1946, and indeed we greet Dr. Nixon on this wonderful honour.

Mr. Lewis: I’ll settle for a simple BA; never mind a doctorate.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are too late. They don’t make those honorary.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There are a couple of schools that I can make some arrangements with. One of them went out of business down there, but for $100 --

Mr. S. Smith: You can get in, but mail early.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d get in before the rules get tougher.

Mr. Lewis: That was my problem, you see

-- I did it on merit

Hon. Mr. Welch: Next time use the mail.

Interjections.

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, may I also table the answer to question 142 standing on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT

Hon. B. Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 139,

An Act respecting Employees’ Health and Safety.

Mr. Lewis: Speech, speech.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member for Wentworth rising to speak?

Mr. Deans: No.

Mr. Speaker: Any comment on this bill? Does the hon. minister have an opening statement? The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I had assumed that the minister would be making an opening statement on the bill, but I guess we’ll have to wait until after the opening statements.

I am happy to take

part in what I consider to be a very important debate I think we have come a long way in Ontario to this point where we are actually debating a bill with the principles that are contained in this particular one. While we know that there are things that we want to change in it, nevertheless we are happy that it is here before us today.

The principles of the bill which allow us to support it are three -- namely the centralization of the responsibility for occupational health under one ministry, the establishment of safety committees at various places of work, and the right of workers to refuse to work under conditions that they deem to be unsafe.

We support these principles but we do want assurances from the minister that these principles will be translated into action without sleight-of-hand and without any “peas under the shell” games. We are not entirely satisfied with the bill, and that will become increasingly apparent as this debate continues and particularly as we get into the clause- by-clause discussion.

It’s very important to us that the government regard our amendments in a positive way and that the government be open-minded about the amendments we put forth. We think they will be thoughtful and in the best long-run interests of employers and employees alike; indeed, we think they are absolutely crucial if the bill is going to work. We shall be proposing a considerable number of amendments.

We think it makes no sense whatsoever to bring in a major piece of legislation such as this without making every possible effort to ensure it will work. It will only work, of course, if it’s acceptable to those people who will ultimately be responsible for making it work, namely the workers in Ontario. We will be putting forth our amendments with that in mind.

The workers in the province are certainly committed to the three principles in this bill, as we are, and that only leaves the employers and the government. Our commitment is unquestionable and so is that of the workers. They are determined to make this kind of legislation work so they have the right to refuse work when it is obvious that conditions are unsafe. We can only hope that the employers and the government are serious in wanting this kind of legislation that will work.

It has been a long and persistent struggle by workers and their unions to get this bill this far. I hope the history of labour some day will be told, because there has been struggle for decent wages, there has been struggle for decent hours of work and the right to organize and the right to work under conditions that are safe. I often wonder why it is that we look back so casually on those struggles which really were struggles for very basic civil rights in this province and elsewhere as well. Despite that fact we honour more the E. P.

Taylors of this province than we do the workers who really struggled to achieve what they have. I guess it’s because the E. P. Taylors are the swashbuckling gamblers in our society. The workers merely struggle for what they get and in many cases they have achieved it at considerable personal sacrifice and risk.

This bill establishes the right of workers to refuse to work under unsafe conditions. It really is a sad commentary that it has taken us this long to make it a right in Ontario that they can refuse to work in unsafe conditions without fear of reprisals from employers.

What has been missing in my view in the whole attitude toward the work place is that we continue to regard the work place as having only an economic dimension. Surely work has a social dimension as well and that industrial society called the work place surely should be collectively striving for the same goals that the society in which it functions is striving.

I think that that’s something we have always been slow to recognize and slow to encourage -- at least the government has been slow to encourage -- because until now the work place has been highly competitive and predatory while at the same time the government was in the background operating in a very paternalistic fashion. For these reasons some employers have subjected workers to some very hazardous working conditions.

I say “competitive” because you need only ask any bonus miner whether or not he works in a competitive work environment, and I say “predatory” because of the whole history of negotiations and the whole history of occupational health in the province of Ontario. I don’t think I need to recite

chapter and verse the story of Elliot Lake, the story of the asbestos mines in northern Ontario or the factory in Scarborough to substantiate my argument when I say “predatory system.”

I should make one exception when I say the work place has been predatory and the government paternalistic. There is an exception and that’s the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). He is considerably more predatory than paternalistic. I don’t want to lower the level of debate unduly here but I can assure you that had this responsibility for occupational health been transferred entirely to the Ministry of Natural Resources rather than the Ministry of Labour, we could not have supported the bill, given the present Minister of Natural Resources.

I would only say that now that we have taken occupational health -- namely, the fate of the miners -- out of the hands of the Minister of Natural Resources, we need only remove mines and forests and he will then have responsibilities more commensurate with his capacity.

Back to the bill: This legislation provides that an employee may refuse to work where he believes an unsafe condition exists. That right is a very important one and should, of course, extend from the employee to his representative, namely, the union. When the asbestos dust levels at the United Asbestos plant in Matachewan were at an unacceptable level, it was the workers who went off the jobs because they knew the dangers of working in that dust.

What should be allowed is that the union should legitimately be able on behalf of its employees to say those conditions are completely unacceptable and, to maintain any kind of integrity as representing the membership, to say employees simply cannot work in those conditions and to recommend it to the membership. Just as an automobile driver can decide, if there is freezing rain out, that he will not drive on an icy highway because of the conditions, then surely a worker can make the same decision about the work place.

While the bill itself does give that right to the workers, there is one

section in it,

section 3(2) -- and we deal with it more fully when we get into the clause-by-clause debate -- where there is an interesting phrase that I think reveals a great deal about the minister, about her senior officials and about the government as a whole. That phrase is: “Where the employer or the person having control and direction over the employee disputes the report.” And then it goes on to complete it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Which section?

Mr. Laughren: This is

section 3(2). It is a bit of a diversion, but the words “having control and direction over the employee” are used several times in the bill. It bothered me when I first read it. Then I was reading through the Saskatchewan legislation and saw the different wording. In the Saskatchewan legislation, which is the original 1972 bill, where it describes the employer, it doesn’t use the term “where the employer or the person having control and direction over the employee.” It uses the term “the person in charge of the operation of the place of employment.”

The minister may think that is not a substantial difference. In the one case the legislation describes the employer as someone who is in charge of the place of employment, and in the Ontario bill the description is the employer or the person having control and direction over the employee. So there is a paternalistic, elitist approach to this legislation still. I am uneasy about that kind of attitude remaining.

Despite the apparent willingness to give to the workers through safety committees and through worker inspectors some degree of autonomy and authority, as long as the attitude remains that they are chattels of the employer, then we are not going to progress as far as I would like to see us progress, even though the employee has the right to refuse to work. In other words, I am saying that it is not enough to have a principle of the right of the employee to refuse to work; that employee’s right must be firmly established and must have the backing of the ministry.

The second major

section of the bill empowers the Minister of Labour to establish joint health and safety committees in a workplace. The actual wording of the relevant

section of the bill uses the term “may require.” That simply is not good enough. The establishments of these joint safety and health committees simply must be mandatory. I cannot stress strongly enough to the minister how we feel about that. We feel that unless they are mandatory the people who need them the most simply won’t have them. We will be bringing forth amendments to back that up.

I can certainly think of some lumber companies in the area I represent where they will need a lot more prodding than this kind of permissive legislation. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the minister accept amendments, or make amendments herself, that will require joint health and safety committees in every work place over, say, 10 employees. Otherwise, the very workers who need these committees the most won’t get them. If an employer is conscientious and has a good record and a good attitude toward safety and health, that employer won’t object to establishing the joint committee.

The mandatory aspect of the bill won’t bother those employers. If, on the other hand, those employers are not safety conscious and are not conscientious, then the safety and health committees should be mandatory for those employers in particular.

[3:15]

It makes no sense to make the legislation permissive. The very workers who need them most, simply won’t get them. I’m not convinced of the ministry’s ability to descend and direct committees in every place that requires them, particularly in relatively small operations. That’s why we feel so very strongly that the joint committees must be mandatory. It’s not a breakthrough; it’s been established in Saskatchewan for some time now.

We know the employer has a responsibility to provide a safe, healthy work environment and we also know, despite what the minister might think some times, that the employees have the responsibility as well to ensure that the work they do is carried out safely and also that any potential problems are brought to the attention not only of the employees’ representatives but of the employer as well.

In the past, of course, the employees always did have that responsibility. That’s nothing new. Employees have always had a responsibility to themselves and to their fellow workers to work safely, but they have never had any authority to do anything about it. When they tried to change something to make it safer they found they had no authority, and now, for the first time, those workers, those people with the most at stake in safety and health, will actually be able to do something about it. They will be able to have involvement in the decisions that can change those conditions.

The principle of joint safety and health committees is too important to leave it permissive and subject to the whims of successive Ministers of Labour, because we don’t know from one appointment to the next what commitment any given minister is going to have toward making this Act work. That’s another reason we feel they must be made mandatory.

The Saskatchewan legislation states very clearly, and I quote: “In every place of employment at which 10 or more persons are employed the person in charge of the operation of the place of employment shall cause a committee to be established to be known as an occupational health committee.” That is what I meant when I said it would not be breakthrough legislation. It’s already established and working in Saskatchewan. It has not been abused in Saskatchewan to our knowledge, and that’s in conversations with some of the people in Saskatchewan, so there is no reason why Ontario cannot make the committees mandatory.

Mr. Bullbrook: But that is not mandatory; that is not universally mandatory.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, yes it is, in all places.

Mr. Bullbrook: Read it again.

Mr. Laughren: I can tell you, it is.

Mr. Bullbrook: Read it again.

Mr. Laughren: I can quote the entire Saskatchewan legislation but that particular phrase that you question says: “In every place of employment at which 10 or more persons are employed the person in charge of the operation of the place of employment shall cause a committee to be established to be known as an occupational health committee.”

Mr. Bullbrook: That is reasonable legislation; that is not universally mandatory.

Mr. Laughren: Of course, it’s mandatory. For all places of work with 10 or more employees.

Mr. Bullbrook: With 10 or more employees.

Mr. Laughren: That is what we are saying too. That is what I have already said.

Mr. Foulds: Your law office will be exempt, Jim, don’t worry.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order. I don’t want to be provocative. There are many people here who like to be provocative. We are speaking about universal and mandatory legislation, and that’s not universally mandatory. It’s dependent upon the number of employees, which is an extremely reasonable approach that we subscribe to.

Mr. Foulds: That is not a point of order, either.

Mr. Laughren: If I might reply to the non point of order, Mr. Speaker, two points --

Mr. Bullbrook: Don’t let him do that, that is out of order.

Mr. Laughren: -- one, I did not use the word “universal” and two, I did use the term “10 or more employees.” So the member obviously wasn’t listening very carefully.

Mr. McClellan: He should go back to sleep.

Mr. Laughren: I think one of the main advantages of having safety and health committees in the work place is the expertise which the employees can bring to all matters, and not just matters concerning occupational health and safety either. I am sure that many workers have suggestions that can make it a better place to work but may not have anything to do with safety on the job.

As a matter of fact, employers realized this many years ago when it suited their purpose. That’s why all across this country and in other jurisdictions you have employers’ suggestion awards. The employer rewards employees who come forth with suggestions that earn the company more money, and he rewards the employees financially when those suggestions are accepted. So an employer realizing the expertise that employees had when it suited the purpose of the employer is nothing new.

In this case the employees are going to get some of the benefits of their own expertise. We feel the same principles apply to safety and health and the workers have a considerable degree of expertise to offer.

I suspect this government would be ideologically more comfortable if it could simply commission an army of inspectors to swarm all over the work places in this province and do the inspection that way. The minister shakes her head, but the Minister of Health --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Absolutely no way.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: No, not at all. We’ve said for years that the workers themselves should control the work place, not the employers. The Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller), I believe it was, announced about six months ago that he was hiring 10 more people who were experts in occupational health matters, who were going to lay it on in Ontario --

Hon. B. Stephenson: They weren’t inspectors.

Mr. Laughren: Well, what were they?

Hon. B. Stephenson: They were assessors who went around assessing.

Mr. Laughren: They were experts in the field?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, that’s what I thought you said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We’re not going to get involved in an informal debate.

Hon. B. Stephenson: God forbid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt has the floor and should address himself to the bill and through the Chair.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I’d be delighted to do that. Through you to the minister I would just suggest that if we were the government -- indeed, when we are the government -- we would establish training programmes for the workers so they could do their own testing and set some of their own rules for occupational health and safety, rather than hiring --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have already done that.

Mr. Laughren: -- the 10 experts that the Minister of Health talked about, to go out and assess conditions in the province of Ontario. You can use the word “assess” instead of “inspect” if you like, but it basically means the same thing.

So we assume the minister and her government begrudgingly accept safety and health committees in the province. But we’re saying to them, why don’t you embrace the concept instead of tiptoeing around it and make them mandatory, for heaven’s sake, in all places of work with 10 or more employees? Does that satisfy the Liberal Party? Accept the role that the government should play to make the committees mandatory, and then give them the encouragement, the moral support, the equipment, the access to educational programmes to make it work and to give the safety and health committees the kind of expertise they need to let them do a positive and a good job.

If a committee in an asbestos mill or a mine or a factory or any other work place wants to take dust readings then why should they not be encouraged to do so? Let them take the dust readings; train them in the operation of the equipment to take the test; train them how to decipher the results of the test -- give the equipment and the training to do it properly. If the miners are worried, for example, about the relationship about bonus mining and safety, then the ministry should be there to say, “You’re quite right, that is a legitimate concern,” and ensure that the committees have access to all information.

I know the wording in the bill, which I’ve read very carefully, implies that that is so. I am a little worried about it being a little loose that way -- in other words, that the employer shall be required to provide information of that nature when the safety and health committees request it. I don’t think that’s asking too much.

In other words, I’m suggesting to the minister that the employees on the job be looked upon as a full partner at their place of work. In the past that has not been so because, it being a free-enterprise government and employers being free-enterprise types, they have always said it’s the capital that makes those jobs possible, rather than taking the view that it’s the labour that allows the capital to be productive.

I shall not dwell unduly on the committees but I do think the minister should understand that unless they are mandatory -- and I’ll repeat that as many times as I have to, to convince the minister -- unless they’re mandatory, those employees in the province who would stand to benefit the most from this legislation will not have the vehicle necessary to effect necessary changes. That bothers us a great deal.

This legislation also contains an important administrative change; that is

section 12 transfers

part IX of The Mining Act, except

section 616, from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Ministry of Labour, and The Silicosis Act also moves over under

section 13. Aside from the necessity of protecting the workers from the mines division of the Ministry of Natural Resources, there are other good reasons for this move, which we wholeheartedly support.

Some of us, I might say, support the move less enthusiastically than others, and I can assure the minister that I personally would have no qualms whatsoever in abolishing entirely the Provincial Secretariat for Justice, the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development and the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development -- I’d even abort the Ministry of Natural Resources -- if it would provide startup funds for a separate Ministry of Occupational Health. I think there are sufficient financial savings that could result from other trimming in government to establish a separate ministry.

If we can justify a Ministry of Culture and Recreation, we can justify a Ministry of Occupational Health.

I did say that we are supporting this administrative transfer. I’m making a plea to not only the government but my own caucus when I make this argument.

By establishing a separate ministry, the occupational health requirements would be competing at a higher level. They would be competing in a bigger league. That’s what I would like to see. That’s the kind of importance I would attach to occupational health. As long as occupational health falls within any operating ministry, it’s going to be competing for funds at a different level.

Perhaps as important as the competition for funds, by establishing a separate ministry who would be serving notice to employees, to employers, to everyone in the province, of the kind of priority we are giving to occupational health in Ontario. That’s terribly important because occupational health problems are not transient in nature; they’re here to stay. They’re becoming more complex, more sophisticated and consequently more worrisome to a lot of us.

Much research needs to be done in the preventive aspects of occupational health. The exposure of workers to carcinogens and other toxic substances is increasing and in some cases we do not yet know the extent of the danger or the safe levels. There has been debate in this House on what are acceptable levels for different carcinogens, but some of them we don’t even know yet, I suspect, that they are carcinogens. The long incubation period of many of the diseases, such as cancer, silicosis and asbestosis poses a particular problem as well. I think we must move most aggressively from counting the fatalities after the fact to preventing them from occurring in the first place.

[3:30]

I believe the problem is of sufficient importance to establish a separate ministry with substantial funding. We can no longer worship at the altar of the work ethic. I’m glad the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith) is here because he spends some time, I believe, thinking about the work ethic and he even speaks about it occasionally.

I think he surely would agree that if we’re going to say to workers in this jurisdiction or anywhere else that to work is good, then we should make sure that when they go to their place of work they work under conditions which are healthy and under conditions which are safe. It makes no sense whatsoever to encourage people to work all their lives without giving them the support of government to ensure that they work under healthy and safe conditions.

I’m sure the minister would agree that it’s not good enough to clean up the existing hazardous conditions. We must make a very real effort to prevent any new ones from occurring. We know as well that the task will be expensive. We know it will be onerous but I think we all agree it must be done. Whether the present government remains in office or not, I think we should continue to press for the kind of priority for occupational health which would justify a separate ministry.

We support the three basic principles of this bill -- the central authority; the right of workers to refuse to work in unsafe conditions; and the establishment of the joint health and safety committees.

We’re worried about some of the things that are missing in the bill. I know the minister has promised an omnibus bill in the new year but there is much which need not have waited until then. I think some could have been included in this bill but we’ve had no indication from the minister as to what will be included in that new omnibus legislation.

Also we’ve had very little indication from the minister about the promised institute of occupational health. That was promised over a year ago -- on the eve, coincidentally, of the 1975 provincial election. When I questioned the minister about her intentions in the Ministry of Labour estimates she was rather vague about it -- disturbingly vague -- and did not indicate what she saw its role to be or its relationship to this new occupational health branch within the Ministry of Labour. Surely, after more than a year, some of the details must be worked out. If they’re not however, I feel it’s incumbent on me to offer some suggestions to the minister --

Hon. B. Stephenson: No doubt.

Mr. Laughren: -- in a very positive vein so that she can include them in her eventual plan. I’m sure she will listen.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Always.

Mr. Laughren: The introduction of this legislation would have been an ideal time to announce the establishment of a new school or faculty of occupational or industrial hygiene at one of the province’s universities. I suspect that federal financing could have been obtained to help out. I suspect there would be considerable interest from other jurisdictions both in terms of support and in terms of experts who would be willing to come to such a faculty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would hope that the hon. member for Nickel Belt won’t dwell unduly long on what is not in the bill but will address himself to what is in the bill.

Mr. Bullbrook: Very good.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, that’s a good point, Mr. Speaker. I would like to talk about something that’s in the bill, peripherally, namely the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s not in the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, there is a reference to the Compensation Board in the bill. The bill, however, really doesn’t deal in sufficient depth with what could have been done with the Compensation Board while dealing with this Act. I worry about the Workmen’s Compensation Board because I worry that the board has become an end in itself, has become an agency of government but not really answerable to government. Otherwise, I suspect, the government would not be so continually embarrassed about the operation of the Compensation Board because it would do something about it. It’s a mess and the Tories know it. It’s a continual source of embarrassment to the government.

Mr. Warner: It should be embarrassed. It should start over. It’s a continual disgrace.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it is not.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to you -- you may not have had time recently because of your onerous task as Deputy Speaker -- that the Workmen’s Compensation Board for years has had the authority to establish safety committees in places of work that had a bad safety record. I don’t know how long ago, but

section 86 of the bill states that if there is a bad safety record in a place of employment the board has the right to require that safety committees be established. I would like to know if there have been any such committees established by the Workmen’s Compensation Board?

An hon. member: Never.

Mr. Laughren: One wonders if there is a parallel. The Workmen’s Compensation Board was given the right to establish safety committees and never did. This minister in this legislation gives the ministry the right to establish safety committees without making them mandatory. One wonders if it is going to be the same kind of commitment the Workmen’s Compensation Board has had for safety in the province of Ontario. Whenever we pursued this matter with the Workmen’s Compensation Board they always said their job is to process the accidents. They have told us: “We’ll process the claims and perform some degree of rehabilitation for the injured workers. Our job is not prevention.”

Not only have they told us that, they haven’t done it. The minister looks sceptical, but I can tell her if they had done it there would have been safety committees established in the province of Ontario in a large number of work places in order to prevent the accident rate. I would remind the minister that in any future dealings with the Compensation Board, whether it has to do with these safety committees or not, that she remind them that they had their chance to establish work safety committees and they didn’t do it. If I was her, if I might be so bold as to give her some advice, I would urge her to deal with the board in a most uncompromising fashion.

If the board had established these safety committees and had played any kind of preventive role in occupational health, some of the problems would not have been as serious as they were. I refer specifically to some of the problems that came out of Elliot Lake where the board was processing the claims, getting the claims through and not forwarding information to the Ministry of Health. Then the whole thing died, nothing happened, and there was no follow-up. We all beard about it from a speech in France, I believe.

I know you know, Mr. Speaker, that eventually the Compensation Board must be abolished and replaced with a comprehensive social insurance scheme.

Mr. Angus: A comprehensive socialist government.

Mr. Laughren: In the interim they should get their house in order, and that is what we are suggesting.

This bill has many other shortcomings. We think that when the minister was talking in this bill about giving workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe conditions, she could also have said that when a worker contracts an industrial disease that worker then could, through the Workmen’s Compensation Board, be removed from the job and either put on rehabilitation or on some other job without any loss of income or fringe benefits whatsoever. That could have been done in this bill.

I am concerned as well that this bill does not include the establishment of a data bank for the compilation of statistics concerning occupational health. I think it would have been an ideal place to start that. I suspect the minister intends to do that with the institute of occupational health, but as I say we have no way of knowing that because she has not revealed any of her plans on that yet.

The legislation is really a skeleton. I was very surprised at how short the bill was and how little there was in it. I suspect that for years to come labour is going to spend a great deal of time trying to put flesh on that skeleton because there is not very much there now. That is one reason why we are going to have to propose as many amendments as we intend to in order to beef it up so that it will work. We think there is not enough there right now to make it work. I think the lack of definition in the bill as to what they are attempting to do is also something they should have addressed themselves to.

The bill talks about safety and health in such a way that one just knows they are still thinking of safety and health in a physical sense only. We know that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Come off it.

Mr. Laughren: Show me in the bill where it says differently.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Just because the member is so narrow-minded doesn’t mean the rest of us are.

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: Don’t be so touchy.

Mr. Foulds: Call the hon. minister to order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: If I might be so bold as to continue to criticize the legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the bill reflects the attitude that the WCB has, namely it’s injury or accident oriented, and while the minister says that the board always gives the workers the benefit of the doubt, that’s only true when there is no doubt -- because if there’s any doubt at all it does not go to the worker.

I’d like to draw a comparison in this Act. The Act talks about occupational health and safety and all the references in the bill are about accidents, industrial disease, mainly accidents though, and I’d like to tell you how the Saskatchewan bill described occupational health, and lacking in this bill is even a definition of occupational health

The Saskatchewan occupational health bill describes occupational health as: “1. The promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers.” I emphasize that the chances of finding the term “social well-being” in any Tory government legislation dealing with workers is nil. That’s the difference.

“2. The prevention among workers of ill health caused by their working conditions.

“3. The protection of workers in their employment from risks resulting from factors adverse to health.

“4. Replacing and maintenance of workers in an occupational environment adapted to their physiological and psychological conditions.”

Does the minister understand the difference in that kind of wording in a bill and what that says about the intent of government; compared to the wording in the bill that she’s brought forth today? The different attitude it has towards workers? In one case the awareness that the work place is a social place as well as an economic place; that’s what Saskatchewan realized.

This government still regards the work place as having only an economic dimension, no social dimension at all. There’s no talk about the social well-being, or the physiological and psychological well-being, or work that’s suitable to the worker; no thought of that in the Ontario legislation. That’s where this minister’s bill is lacking and that’s why we are not perhaps as generous as she might wish us to be when we talk about this legislation. If we tied that philosophy toward the worker in the work place, along with the Saskatchewan attitude that occupational health is an engineering problem -- as we talked about in the Ministry of Labour estimates

-- I think we’d have a nice combination of intent on the part of the government; namely that we regard occupational health as an engineering problem and we’ll do whatever we can to ensure that the hazards are minimized in terms of health and safety. It is an engineering problem, but at the same time, when it comes to the worker, we regard the worker as being in a social setting on the job and his well-being is important, more than just physically but mentally as well.

I believe that in the days to come and the years to come, many of our problems in occupational health are not going to be so easily identified as they have been in the past -- namely, an injury or an industrial disease that we call cancer, or asbestosis or chronic bronchitis -- but it will be problems that are related to stress. It may not be that the blue collar worker suffers from it any more than any other worker, but that’s the kind of problem we’re going to be getting in with. We’re going to be dealing with them I think.

They are there now, and as long as we have a philosophy of work that deals with the worker as an economic unit and the work place as having only an economic dimension, we’re never going to come to grips with that problem.

[3:45]

I am totally convinced that we are going to have to deal with diseases associated with alienation and stress in the work place in the years to come and I am worried that the minister is committed to that kind of campaign on occupational health. I am concerned as well that the person she has hired as the director of the occupational health branch, who is a medical person, will have that kind of commitment as well. Quite frankly I don’t want to malign the medical profession, but they have not regarded it --

Mr. Foulds: Some of your best friends are doctors.

Mr. Laughren: -- they have not regarded it in that fashion. As a matter of fact, you would agree with me, would you not?

Mr. Dukszta: Yes, yes.

Mr. Foulds: One of my best friends is a doctor.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Really?

Mr. Laughren: The member for Parkdale agrees with me.

Mr. Shore: Is he a real doctor?

Mr. Laughren: And I am saying to you --

Mr. Breaugh: He is the kind you need, Marvin.

Mr. Shore: Do you get good advice over there?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let’s have some order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt will please address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There will be less chance for interjections.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you. I appreciate that, particularly as it is protecting me from my own back-benchers!

I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, that we should start to deal with that problem before it becomes the issue of the day, because I suspect that it is just around the corner.

I believe that the government’s record on occupational health is dismal, to say the least. I think that its commitment has been non-existent and I assure the minister we shall be pressing, day in and day out in the days ahead, to make sure that this legislation does not become simply window dressing.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to begin by voicing again my great admiration for you personally when you occupy that chair, because you do a great job as Speaker. I didn’t see one flicker of assertiveness or negativism when he went through this balderdash about doing away with the Workmen’s Compensation Board and implementing a comprehensive social insurance universal compensation system, such as I think they do in New Zealand --

Mr. Warner: Ask him how he will vote.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- which, of course, is almost a complete tragedy as the people of New Zealand --

Mr. MacDonald: Who says?

Mr. Laughren: Slander, oh slander.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- begin to agree, month by month. But I say to you you are truly an objective Speaker. I intend to direct my remarks solely to you, as the arbiter of objectivity and justice in the House, because it has been a long time since I have seen a piece of legislation that requires this sweet injection of the temperate view of the Liberal Party to make a proper analysis of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: Because my friend from Nickel Belt, if I have properly written down his attitude and I quote from him, says:

Mr. Samis: Legalese.

Mr. Bullbrook: “The workers should control the work place.” Well, if that’s the attitude of the New Democratic Party -- and I don’t know whether the attitude of the Tory government is that the management right clause is universal and sacrosanct, we don’t agree with either one.

As I said in the opening of the estimates --

Mr. Warner: You have never been a worker.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- of the minister some several weeks ago, the fact of the matter is we have got to bring a little social democracy to the work place, a little coming together of both of them.

Mr. Samis: You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Bullbrook: You know it really --

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say one other thing too. I was sitting here and when he was talking about the social disease -- what was it? What was the word that my colleague from Nickel Belt --

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- of alienation -- of the social disease of alienation, I want to tell you there’s one type of employee who can overcome that social disease right away and that’s a member of the legislative assembly. All he has to do is say, “I am alienated, I am not going to run again. I have given up.” I heartily recommend that. I heartily recommend that to some of my colleagues --

Mr. Davidson: Is that what you are doing --

Mr. Bullbrook: -- from the New Democratic Party.

Interjection.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have yet to see such mouthing of platitudes for the workmen as some of these people. Some of them weren’t here in 1970. I want to read something.

Mr. Davidson: Keep talking. We’ll use it at the next union meeting.

Mr. Warner: Is this debating the bill?

Mr. Bullbrook: He talks about using it at the next union meeting. If he means in Cambridge, I can well understand that. I want him to come down to Sarnia and join in some of the union meetings there some time. They hold them in telephone booths as a matter of fact.

Mr. Samis: What about the bill?

Mr. Shore: Do they really?

Mr. Bullbrook: They certainly do. All the NDP there have lost their deposit for the last four elections in a row in Sarnia. They want to come down to that great place of the working man. Let me read you, Mr. Speaker, something that happened in 1970.

Mr. Foulds: Why don’t you resign now so we can have a by-election?

Mr. Bullbrook: In 1970 we were putting forward amendments to The Mining Act, and the Liberal Party at that time -- specifically the then member for Sudbury and my present colleague from Erie -- put forward some amendments to The Mining Act.

Section 2 was amended by Mr. Haggerty, seconded by Mr. Sopha, and the motion was for the establishment of a safety committee under The Mining Act, with proper definition. The vote was: the Tories voted against it, the NDP voted against it. That was back in 1970 when we wanted compulsory safety committees.

There sits in the gallery right now a former colleague of ours, that great friend, Mr. Hugh Peacock, now liaison officer with this assembly from the Ontario Federation of Labour, and a man, by the way, who has given me much education over the last few weeks.

Mr. MacDonald: That I can believe. That I can believe

Mr. Bullbrook: I hope that doesn’t interfere with his job. But the New Democratic Party voted against it. There was a second amendment at that time to The Mining Act which gave the power to the safety committee to enter upon and make recommendations with respect to the proper safety of the employee. The New Democratic Party took it upon themselves at that time to vote against it.

That happens to be six years ago, and I hear my colleague from Nickel Belt stand up and say, “A little bit too late,” knowing that his party, for what reason I can’t recall -- I just can’t recall why they voted against that -- but in any event they decided that it wasn’t appropriate.

Mr. Samis: Why don’t you talk about the bill?

Mr. Bullbrook: Why don’t I talk about the bill? I have to, in fairness, point out that we as a party are not going to subscribe to that narrow approach that says the workers must govern the working place. There are a lot of things wrong with this legislation, but basically anybody who has read the Ham report compliments the ministry on a beginning with respect to implementation of some of his recommendations. We intend to support this. We understand the Ontario Federation of Labour supports the bill in principle. We understand the Ontario Mining Association supports the bill in principle.

What we are going to do is attempt to bring forward amendments which we think will enhance the effectiveness of the bill. We are going to support amendments which we think will enhance the effectiveness of the bill.

When I got up, and you indulged me, and I interrupted my great colleague from Nickel Belt, that fine friend, when I interrupted him he was talking previously about the word “may” in two sections, 4 and 5; and he found that offensive. I find it much more offensive in 5 than in 4 because at least in 4 we have some delineation of the discretion to be exercised by the minister but we don’t have anything of that nature in 5.

I am not happy about the word, “must”, but to get up and spend five minutes talking about making it mandatory, and then to read from other legislation which isn’t mandatory -- the fact is that there is the seed within the words themselves, “more than 10,” that we have to discuss in this assembly.

First of all, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, does it mean that it should be mandatory? Must the minister in every case appoint such a committee whether the employees or employers don’t want it at all? Whether it is for four employees or not? I say frankly I want to have a debate, and a significant debate, among all of us when we are in committee to decide what would be appropriate in the circumstances. On the one hand I see a need for placing an obligation upon the minister where she can’t negatively exercise the discretion and where it is warranted that she appoint such a committee.

On the other hand, I don’t think we can straitjacket the minister in such a position that she must appoint in every instance.

We have been given some amendments already -- I don’t think that particular one is covered in the amendments -- and I look forward to some degree of receptiveness on the part of the minister to an amendment which might be put forward. I hesitate to put the amendment forward because frankly I wrestled with the propriety of the wording of it. I am going to be very interested.

If it deals with 10 or more, I wonder if that’s not unduly arbitrary. It concerns me that in a situation where there is a wholesome reciprocity of attitudes between management and its collective bargaining agent and they feel they have done an adequate job themselves -- such as exists in some industries, at least in some plants in Ontario -- why is it necessary that we impose upon the minister an obligation to intervene when they are doing the very thing we want them to do? That is, together under the collective agreement, they’re protecting their individual employees.

That’s why I’m vitally interested in listening again to the amendments of the New Democratic Party. I want to say we’ll make no commitment one way or the other but we will decide on the reasonableness of it.

If they make a valid argument that there should be a number and we think that number is reasonable, I think my colleagues would follow my thoughts and my guidance since it is my responsibility as official critic to recommend to them what we do. I want to say that we won’t go for universality. If that’s what it is to be we will vote with the government as much as we don’t like it.

Those are some of the things we want to come to grips with during the course of the committee. It is extremely important that we rewrite this legislation to cover things which are not presently covered.

With respect to

section 2 and the cessation of work activities in unsafe conditions, there are two things which cause me great concern. First of all there are the words “reasonable cause.” There’s a great body of legislation under the labour arbitration cases which has defined reasonable cause mainly in the context of (1), the factual situation and (2), the terms of the collective agreement itself.

The problem here is that we have people outside the purview of organized labour who are to be covered, I would hope, under this statute. I think we have to have some definition of what constitutes reasonable cause in the circumstances.

For example, I had a representative, the chief steward of the IBEW, who came to me last Thursday in connection with this matter, about the lineman for whom the essence of his undertaking is an unsafe condition almost; a hazardous condition. He asked me, “How am I going to guide those people within my bargaining unit who might take a position arbitrarily that their work is unsafe when we recognize that the very nature of the work at times is unsafe?”

As a matter of fact, the more the work is needed, the more unsafe it is. It’s after the storm, when the lines are down and things -- the word “thing” is used in this

section -- are unsafe that we have to call upon these people to remedy the deficiency. I am vitally concerned. There might be a manifest and obvious answer that I am missing but I am very concerned about the definition of unsafe as well as some elaboration as to what constitutes a unilateral judgement by the employee which would support the words “reasonable cause.”

The Ontario Mining Association -- I want to read this into the record at least partly -- has suggested the definition in the Manitoba mines Act. I don’t think it suffices, frankly, but if I might I’ll read it:

“Unsafe means any condition existing that constitutes a risk to an employee that is not normal to the usual risks of a job that an employee is required to do from time to time and shall be deemed to be a condition that is dangerous to the health of the employee or to the safety of the employee in the performance of his work.”

[4:00]

That, as suggested by the Ontario Mining Association, is lifted totally out of the Manitoba mining Act. It does overcome, as I think the minister would agree, the problem where there is an inherent nature of risk in the normal work activities. I really don’t think her

section covers that. In that respect I think it puts too much of an onus upon the employer, and I think that’s something we’ve got to cover.

There are other things that have been covered by the member for Nickel Belt that I had made comment about before. On sections 4 and 5, the question of discretion, I agree with him --

Mr. McClellan: Tell us what the association wants.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m sorry; I’m prepared to --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, I am prepared to take a question if he wants.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The hon. member will continue the debate in second reading.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. Before the question, I was dealing with whether sections 4 or 5 should be mandatory. I pointed out, as my colleague from Nickel Belt neglected to point out, that

section 5 is much more deficient than

section 4. At least

section 4 does try to catalogue and delineate the guidelines to which the minister should subject herself in making a decision. I also am very interested in

section 4(3) and the question of who actually conducts the appointment to the committee itself. That doesn’t seem to be defined. It reads: “A committee shall consist of such number of persons as the minister may prescribe

Mr. Deans: Is this clause by clause?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member would keep his remarks to the principle rather than debating clause by clause at this time.

Mr. Deans: Absolutely.

Mr. Mackenzie: When is he going to start?

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say something to you, Mr. Speaker. You weren’t in the chair, and I say this most respectfully, but we went through at least 35 minutes of having to digest the propriety of the accident prevention function of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which has nothing to do with this legislation.

Mr. Laughren: Not true.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, it has always been my intention to abide by the rulings of the Chair, and I’ll abide by that ruling, but I want to ask your indulgence in this respect: I’m trying to deal with principles, and the principle I’m attempting to deal with now is the question of the appointment and constitution of the committee.

I’m directing a question that involves the principle of who should be responsible for the appointment, so that the minister will feel free to respond during the course of her contribution on second reading to give us some idea of what her intention might be in committee. I appreciate very much the censure that you’ve placed upon me. I’ll try to restrict myself accordingly.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you. I’m interested also in the question of why the guidelines under

section 4 with respect to the exercise of discretion, are not again issued under

section 5. Is that a purposeful thing or was it just an oversight? I think it must be purposeful because otherwise it would be an unduly significant oversight

I want to transfer a thought from

section 4(7) to

section 9, and that is the question of the remuneration of the employee during the time when it’s being assessed whether he has the right to not work. It doesn’t seem to me that the legislation covers entirely his position. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker,

section 9(

e) does refer to the fact that “no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall impose any penalty upon an employee.” I just wonder if the cessation of work and the lack of pay during the time of cessation of work can be construed as a penalty.

Mr. Renwick: I would think so.

Mr. Bullbrook: My colleague from Riverdale says he thinks so. There’s certainly an argument to be put forward that you’re not subject to a sanction if you’re not working. In any event, I think we should cover that, because the member of the committee, as we see under subsection 7, is paid during the exercise of his function as a member of a committee. In the case of the employee who has decided not to work, during the interval of the assessment of the propriety of that decision I think we should define whether he’s entitled to remuneration or not.

Mr. McClellan: Is that what the Mining Association wants basically?

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t know really whether that’s what the Mining Association wants or not. Is the Mining Association big in Parkdale?

Mr. McClellan: I thought it was in the letter the member was reading from a moment ago.

Mr. Bullbrook: Under subsection 10, I’m also interested in who lays the complaint. Is it limited to the ministry? If it is, then I consider that ineffectual. I think the bargaining agent, and failing the existence of a bargaining agency, then the employee individually or any individual employee should be able to lay the information upon reasonable cause.

Those are basically matters of concern to us. As I say, we support the principles of the legislation. My colleague from Nickel Belt spoke about three principles. I’d say there are four, and I’m happy to regard one as an additional principle. That’s the principle of transferring the responsibilities of The Mining Act, The Silicosis Act and the industrial health and safety legislation to the Minister of Labour. I’ve totally felt and I’ve voiced over at least almost a decade that the Ministry of Labour must be a very vital ministry.

I don’t think there’s any ministry that can have a more significant impact on the social and economic welfare, mainly the social welfare, of the people of this province than the Ministry of Labour. It wasn’t appropriate that these functions, which are all in essence welded into one shouldn’t rest with the Ministry of Labour. That’s the way we would want it.

We’ll support the bill as best we can. We’ll do it without the necessity of coming down with rather exaggerated claims. We’ll do it, we hope, without the necessity of taking sides where we have to say that the worker controls the work place because I don’t subscribe to this. My party doesn’t subscribe to it, no more than we subscribe to the fact that management should control the work place.

This is the type of legislation that thirsts for some type of reasonable debate and not debate conducted in a juvenile fashion with a rather socialistic chip on one’s shoulder. Let’s try to do the best for the people.

We’re trying to bring some legislation through that will assist the working people of this province. None of us can stand above the other in this respect and say, “I am holier than thou.” We all work together toward the same end. Let’s act, as our function should direct, to work together for the best type of legislation possible. Let’s forget our past deficiencies. If some of us in 1970 decided not to subscribe to that type of legislation, then we have divested ourselves and we have cleansed ourselves of that error.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The hon. member for London North has the floor.

Mr. Angus: Where is your audience?

Mr. Deans: Do you agree with them?

Mr. Shore: They have a lot of confidence in me.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Is it true that they didn’t have a going away party for you?

Mr. Deans: The question is are they here supporting you?

Mr. Shore: I know most from Hamilton are. It is a privilege for me to extend my support to Bill 139,

An Act respecting Employees’ Health and Safety, proposed by the Minister of Labour. Before I speak specifically on the principles of the bill, I would just like to comment --

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

Mr. Shore: Incidentally, is the member for Oshawa receiving treatment? I just want to know if he is or not.

On the issue, before I get into the generalities of it, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of attending the Labour estimates last week, and I truly believe there’s a lot of constructive information and dialogue that comes forward from there, I don’t believe, on the other hand, there was much destructive information that was coming out of there. The members opposite, particularly the members of the socialist party, the NDP, as the member for Sarnia observed, appear to attack things on a negative basis very well. Very well. I don’t believe that I have to necessarily stand here, and I don’t believe the minister needs me standing here to defend her policies.

Mr. Laughren: That is for sure.

Mr. Shore: Nor does she need me here to defend her personality or her personal position.

Mr. Angus: She doesn’t need you at all.

Mr. Shore: But it particularly disturbs me, not in defence of the minister, who is quite capable of defending herself if needed, but it particularly offends me to sit in those Labour estimates and see and hear some of the things that I did hear.

Mr. Mancini: Speak to the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Be specific, be specific.

Mr. Shore: Some of the things that I truly did hear. It really bothers me. If they truly are interested in advancing the cause for improvement in this area, they would address themselves to this.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t be so vague. What are those vague innuendoes you are referring to?

Mr. Shore: Can you hear when you’re talking, Floyd? Or do you find that it matters? It doesn’t really matter, does it?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order please. Perhaps the hon. member will return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Laughren: I think he has passed it.

Mr. Shore: Right. Mr. Speaker, it is very important in the development of the type of society that we want here in Ontario that the government be prepared to act to protect the rights of those who, by virtue of the nature of the work they do, come into contact with the possibility of injury and therefore should have the right to exert their own prerogative in a responsible fashion to protect themselves.

Members opposite are consistently raising questions, as is their responsibility, with respect to hazardous working conditions, the operation of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and the circumstances that often contribute toward unsafe working circumstances for some of our citizens. But incidentally, they don’t have licences to be the only ones speaking for the working force.

While members on this side of the House share the concerns of those opposite, and express that concern in many ways, both in caucus and directly to the minister, the reality is that we on this side of the House know that Ontario safety standards and the standards set by our Workmen’s Compensation Board rank among the highest in the world. They do.

Mr. Deans: “We on this side of the House”? Which side is that?

Mr. Ferrier: What?

Mr. Shore: Are you okay there, Mr. Deans? Everything all right?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Shore: Sorry it’s starting to bother you.

Mr. Deans: I find it amusing, “We on this side of the House.”

Mr. Acting Speaker: The hon. member will refer to other hon. members by the riding rather than by their name.

Mr. Deans: He has never been able to figure out what side his seat is on. He has trouble finding his seat.

Mr. Shore: They are comparable to any other jurisdiction in North America. They are perhaps a far greater protection than many workers in Great Britain and other places enjoy. I believe that the government has a responsibility to continually review the protection which it offers in this respect, move as fast as possible in that direction, and ensure that the protections operate in a fashion which will guarantee personal safety and are economically viable.

I am sure members opposite would not want a circumstance where the prerogatives with respect to personal safety were used in such an irresponsible manner or fashion by any worker or group of workers to the point where it became simply economically less than viable for a particular construction site or a particular project to continue.

I believe this bill shows the good faith of this government and the positive attitude of its minister and concern of this government for the safety of the working men and women of this province. I think it’s also a challenge to the responsibility of the working men and women of this province. There will be the odd abuse on the part of the odd individual who will see it as an excuse to be used irresponsibly, but I am sure -- and I stress that, Mr.

Speaker, I am sure, as I think are most of the members who have dealt with constituents who have great concerns in this area -- that the vast majority of the working men and women in our province will be exceptionally responsible in the use of this Act and the protection which it provides them.

[4:15]

It’s important too, that the bill provides for third party investigation and deliberation with respect to the ultimate safety of a device or a machine or working circumstance. That, I think, is the ultimate protection both for the employer who may believe he is being unfairly victimized and for the employee who believes that the circumstance is genuinely unsafe.

Mr. Ferris: Who wrote this?

Mr. Shore: I want you to know that I’ve worked in the work force and I want the people on the other side to know that I’ve worked for the Steel Company of Canada. I know a little bit about it. You’re not the only ones.

Mr. Foulds: Let me see your hands.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue debating the principle of the bill.

Mr. Shore: The provisions of

section 4 of the Act, which allows the minister the prerogative to require an employer or group of employers to establish a joint health and safety committee, afford the government an opportunity to ensure that in the structure of economic and industrial development which will ensue in Ontario from this day forward, the notion of safety and workers’ health becomes one of the critical elements in overall economic planning and project planning. I think that is very important. I think that is a major step forward for our jurisdiction and a step forward for our province.

Of equal importance, the provisions in

section 9 would make it illegal -- and I stress illegal -- for any employer or agent of an employer to dismiss or threaten an employee, discipline the employee, impose any penalty or intimidate the employee as a result of the employee having asserted his or her rights under the provisions of this Act.

What is of equal importance as well is the fact that

part IX of The Mining Act, excepting

section 6, subsection 16, is now assigned to the Ministry of Labour, as the member for Sarnia alluded to or stated. That represents an opportunity for the government to pull together the occupational safety thrust, which it has been developing for some time, under one ministry which I believe will operate not only in the interests of the working men and women in these circumstances but also in the true interests of the companies and the corporations which can now deal with one unified sector of government as they adapt to new rules and regulations.

Mr. Laughren: Did John Munro write this?

Mr. Shore: Who wrote yours? The only notion I would add and it may be a little bit superfluous --

Mr. Ferris: Don’t say it then.

Mr. Shore: -- is regarding the physical fitness and well-being of white collar workers who may not come into direct contact with physically hazardous circumstances or machines, like some of the members -- the member for London South who probably hasn’t had that experience at all.

Mr. Cunningham: Is it a hazardous position for the member for London North?

Mr. Shore: Although there are some who would argue that perhaps the most hazardous machine around is the telephone -- in some instances even being a member of this Legislature may be hazardous -- I think that before laughing at that kind of assertion we might give some serious thought to the many citizens of our province who are involved in the insurance industry, like the member for London South, and large corporations and governments and other concerns.

They are involved in large amounts of desk and office work and can build up physical disorders over a period of time which relate to stress, to lack of exercise and to consistently sedentary activity which can cause very serious health concerns as one approaches one’s middle age.

This Act, of course, is not the place for provisions in this respect. I would hope that some day in Ontario we may have the physical fitness assistance, counselling and advice as part and parcel of the employee benefit package which white collar workers could enjoy as part of their overall circumstances.

Mr. Ferris: Help the accountants.

Mr. Shore: In many senses, being able to run around the track for an hour every day, to eat balanced food, to stay away from excess amounts of alcohol and cholesterol and to exercise regularly might be of more real value -- in terms of earning power in one’s middle years and the health which is necessary to sustain that earning power -- than dollars on a pay-cheque. That is for discussion at another time.

It is truly a privilege for me to extend my support of this bill and my congratulations to the Minister of Labour on having brought it forward. It is truly a progressive and humane piece of legislation.

Mr. Laughren: Now we know who wrote it.

Mr. Bounsall: In rising to speak to the employees’ health and safety bill, I must say that when it was first tabled I was a little disappointed in the areas that this bill did not cover. We had a very excellent Ham commission report and many of its recommendations are not even touched upon in this particular bill.

I understand the minister is bringing in an omnibus bill dealing with the structures and so on of the institutes and her ministry to deal with matters of this sort. If that’s what the omnibus bill is, and it will not have contained within it this Act itself, or further steps beyond this Act, then we have before us in this Act the first tentative step toward the protection of workers in Ontario. It is

an Act which would be and should be extended and amended with a fair degree of regularity to have before us

an Act which is really going to be workable in the province of Ontario and one which truly fulfils what I see to be the principles emerging from this bill.

I see among the principles which emerge from this bill, first, the consolidation of responsibility for occupational health and safety within one ministry, the Ministry of Labour. That is certainly a principle worth supporting.

It is certainly a step forward over what we’ve had, where the mining industry has been separated from industrial safety and construction safety, which were in another ministry, with some of the inspections of those places and some of the monitoring and some of the advice to be given in the area of occupational health and safety in the work place residing in yet a third ministry, the Ministry of Health. So the principle of the consolidation which we see in this bill is certainly a principle which can be supported.

The right to refuse unsafe work as outlined in sections 2 and 3 of this bill is certainly a step forward relative to what appeared in particularly the old Industrial Safety Act, which I will dwell on at some length. Certainly the general principle of the right of employees to know and participate in matters of occupational health and safety -- to help in fact set up the framework by which health and safety will be conducted in their plants and in essence setting and drafting the safety policy in their work place --